M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The suit from which this petition for graft of leave to appeal arises, had been instituted by Ghulam Hassan for posses--sion of the house in dispute which was occupied by Ghulam Hussain, since deceased (defendant No. 1) and his son Murid Ahmad (defendant No. 2). His case was that he had purchased the house from Abdullah (defendant No. 3) by a registered sale deed (Exh. P. 2) dated 4-8-1966. In this, he was supported by Abdullah (defendant No. 3) who asserted that he had purchased the site from one Chattar Singh by a registered sale deed dated 3-2-1927 (Exh. P. 8) and constructed the house himself which he later sold in favour of Ghulani Hassan plaintiff by the deed Exh. P.
2. The case of the petitioners/defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was that they were owners of the house which they had themselves built. Alternatively, they set up the plea of adverse possession.. The trial Court rejected their claim to title but, nevertheless, non-suited the plaintiff on their other plea holding that although Abdullah had purchased the vacant site yet he had not established that he had built the house and that Ghulam Hussain and Murid Ahmad had been in continuous possession of the property since more than 30 years. In the plaintiff's appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that the property belonged to Abdullah who had given it to Ghulam Hussain, his maternal nephew and as such the latter's posses--sion was only permissive. He further held that the title had passed from Abdullah to the plaintiff by the sale deed Exh. P. 2 and that there was no clear evidence of the possession being hostile to the owners. He, there--fore, reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit on 9-1-1968. Defendants Ghulam Hussain and Murid Ahmad then came to the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 112 of 1968 pressing their claim on the basis of adverse possession. The learned Judge, after examining the documents produced by both the parties upon which the parties had confined their submissions, rejected the plea of adverse possession and accordingly dismissed the second appeal on 20-4-1980. The heirs of Ghulam Hussain, defendant No. 1, and Mund Ahmad, defendant No. 2, have now applied to this Court for leave to appeal.
2. The petitioners had relied upon documents Exh. D. 1 to D.
12. The High Court, after examining the documents Exh. D. 1 to D. 10, cam to the view that "all these documents relate to the period with in 12 years of the institution of the suit and, therefore, cannot be used as founda--tion of the appellant's claim of adverse possession". Of the remaining two documents on which the petitioners' case had mainly rested, Exh. D. 11 is a registered mortgage dated 20-12-1952 whereby the site belonging to His father Ghulam Hussain, defendant 1, to the plaintiff, had mortgaged Murid Ahmad, defendant 2, who was then a minor. Exh. D. 12 is a sale deed dated 10-6-1946 whereby one Ghulam Muhammad in favour of Murid Ahmad, defendant 2, and the plaintiff had sold a plot jointly. After examining the documents, the High Court came to the view that the same did riot establish that they related to the house in dispute. It also held that the documents could not be used as evidence against the then owner Abdullah, who had not figured in the transactions and also because the same bad not been put to him in his cross-examination. On the other hand, the High Court noticed the documents Exhs. P. 3 and P.
10. By the first document which is dated 9-7-1956, Abdullah had 6 objected to the attachment of the disputed house in execution of a money decree passed against Ghulam Hussain. The second document incorporates a statement of Ghulam Hussain, defendant No. 1, made on 30-10-1956 in that execution proceeding in which he admitted that the house belonged to his maternal uncle. Abdullah. Finding that these two document negated Ghulam Hussain plea, the High Court affirmed the decision of the first appellate Court. The view taken by the High Court is to our mind not open to exception.
3. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners moved two applications, one under Order XLIX, rule 6 of this Courts Rules for permission to file an amended petition for special leave to appeal, and the other for filing additional evidence by way of a mortgage deed registered on 5-4- 1933 and a receipt dated 14-3-1939. By the mortgage deed dated 5-0-1933, Abdullah, his brother Noor Muhammad, and Ghulam Hussain, defendant No. 1, had jointly mortgaged the house described therein with Ghani Sham Das and Sain Ditta Ram. It had been stated in the deed that the three mortgagors were the joint owners of the said house in equal shares. The other document, i.e. The receipt executed on 14-3-1939 acknowledges the receipt of Rs.380.00 on account of redemption of the property in favour of the said mortgagors. The reason for seeking the production of these documents at this belated stage is that they had been discovered only after filing the present petition for special leave to appeal. It is strange that although Ghulam Hussain, defendant No. 1, neither is show to have been a party to this mortgage, yet during his lifetime he never disclosed this fact, nor did he plead in his written statement his co-owner--ship of the property with Abdullah and the said Noor Muhammad. In fact, he had pleaded his exclusive ownership. It is only after his death that the documents have come to light. Since Abdullah, the previous owner of the disputed house, is also deed, it will, in our view, not be proper to permit the production of these documents which will have the effect of re--opening the litigation from the very beginning.
Moreover, it has yet to be established that house figuring in the mortgage deed is the one in the present dispute. We, therefore, reject the applications for production of additional evidence and for amendment of the petition for special leave to appeal.
4. We thus find no merit in the petition and as such dismissed the same. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.